More from these Authors

The way a choice set is constructed can have a significant influence on how individuals perceive and evaluate their options and make decisions between them. Here, I examine whether a “display set” of visible but unavailable options can exert these same types of influences on whether or not to choose a single (target) item. Across a series of experiments, purchase intent is increased when the display set and target are drawn from the same category but decreased when the display and target items are mismatched. This effect is shown to depend on perceived similarity, such that increasing display-target similarity increases purchase intent towards the target. Furthermore, contrary to the predictions made by previous neural and behavioral research on choice sets, the relative value and/or number of display-only items have no significant impact on these decisions. These findings reveal a novel choice behavior in commonly encountered settings such as online marketplaces.

Antisocial behavior is often assumed to reflect aberrant risk processing. However, many of the most significant forms of antisocial behavior, including crime, reflect the outcomes of decisions made under conditions of ambiguity rather than risk. While risk and ambiguity are formally distinct and experimentally dissociable, little is known about ambiguity sensitivity in individuals who engage in chronic antisocial behavior. We used a financial decision-making task in a high-risk community-based sample to test for associations between sensitivity to ambiguity, antisocial behavior, and arrest history. Sensitivity to ambiguity was lower in individuals who met diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Lower ambiguity sensitivity was also associated with higher externalizing (but not psychopathy) scores and with higher levels of aggression (but not rule breaking). Finally, blunted sensitivity to ambiguity also predicted a greater frequency of arrests. Together, these data suggest that alterations in cost-benefit decision-making under conditions of ambiguity may promote antisocial behavior.

Scientists have spent decades creating powerful and detailed descriptions of how people make decisions. Unfortunately, many of these theories make contradictory predictions and are difficult to understand and implement. We introduce the 4 Minds framework as a practical tool for understanding and applying the science of decision-making in the marketplace. We synthesize previous research on decision-making into four broad approaches customers can take to making choices. These four decision-making “Minds”—Ideal Point Mind, Market Comparison Mind, Local Comparison Mind, and Image Mind—lead to very different outcomes and behaviors. We have developed the 4 Minds framework to serve as a diagnostic tool to help identify which clusters of decision-making research are most likely to apply in any given situation. By learning how these decision-making Minds differ, and the factors and environments that precipitate each one, marketers can better anticipate and serve their intended customers.